Women who want abortions, pay PP for them, the government doesn't fund the. See the Hyde amendment!
Opponents of the amendment, such as the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union, assert that it unfairly targets low-income women,[2] stating the amendment effectively ended the provision of abortions for low-income women across the United States through Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income Americans.[3] As a rider attached to the yearly appropriations bill for Medicaid, it occasioned intense debate in Congress each time that it came up for renewal. The original measure made no exceptions for cases of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest or that threatened the lives of pregnant woman, provoking an outcry from women's rights advocates. As a result, beginning in 1977 language was added to provide for such circumstances; however, the exact wording has varied from one year to the next, subject to the outcome of Congressional bargaining on the issue.
If you want DC to be covered, give it statehood. They are truly the only people who are taxed without representation.:2razz:This amendment needs to be made permanent. Is that why we had to specify no federal funds for abortions in DC when everyone thought the Hyde Amendment had taken care of that?
Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyway,I think women deserve better than what PP has to offer, and others should too.
I support universal healthcare. However it is wrong to say that those who don't support it don't care about the health of born individuals. That is a fallacious argument.
No, but I think they are misguided to exactly what PP does. Yes they provide abortion services, but that is only 3% of their services, and they provide many great services to poor, and under-privileged women.
Also, no tax payer money goes to funding abortions anyway, so I don't see the big fuss.
Of course not, but, IMO, they are misers who have no love for mankind....some of them..
Others are anti-abortion and will do anything , right or wrong, to support their cause.....
I'd love to hear from one of them on this forum, but I'll not hold by breath.
If you want DC to be covered, give it statehood. They are truly the only people who are taxed without representation.:2razz:
No, but I think they are misguided to exactly what PP does. Yes they provide abortion services, but that is only 3% of their services, and they provide many great services to poor, and under-privileged women.
Also, no tax payer money goes to funding abortions anyway, so I don't see the big fuss.
I didn't think they wanted statehood. Besides, what does that have to do with us funding their abortions? I think when tax payers say they don't want to fund abortions, they mean just that. They don't mean except, for DC, Haiti, or Kenya.
If you believe in a higher power it's sorta impossible to condone abortion. It's that simple. There no give and take.
They are corrupt. (see other posts of mine)
12% of their total clients get abortions from PP. Over 90% of their pregnent clients get abortions. Call it 3% of services all you want, but it is misleading.
One lady gets a 30 day prescription for BC 12 times in one year. That's 12 services. she also gets tested for STDs 3 times, and she has a pregnancy test. She has racked up 16 services for that year. A lady comes in for an abortion, she has lab work done, gets prep work done, has the abortion, get prescribed BC . She has racked up 4 services. Add the services together from both women = 20 services. Out of 20 services only 1 was for abortion procedure. Keep doing it that way, or similar,
for the 324,008 abortions in 2008 and it's no wonder they can come up with that 3% when they claim well over 10,000,000 services in one year. Personally I'm surprised it's not lower.
What you mean is, "If you believe in the higher power that I believe in, it's sorta impossible to condone abortion." That is an incredibly important condition.
I have not heard of the GOP proposals to provide something better for women's health services than PP, all I've heard about is their intention to cut funding for woman's health services.
Do you have a link to this proposal?
No it is not true. Saying that wanting to de-fund PP amounts is equal to being anti-woman amounts to saying wanting to tear down Wal-Mart is anti-poor.I keep hearing how the act of defunding PP is anti-women. Do you believe this is true?
Why do women need a government funded special place to go for healthcare services? (Unless you're hinting that soon no one else will be taking Medicaid and Medicare under Obamacare) Can't all their needs be met through regular healthcare providers?
What have I missed out on during my life since I've never once used PP or any kind of "family planning services" for my "reproductive" healthcare?
I've been plenty poor too, but have had my share of pap smears and breast examines.
Mammograms too, but they aren't provided by PP anyway.
The sheer number of abortions PP provides is the only thing that sets them apart from other HC providers. If cutting off their funding....
Oh..crap, I don't know why we are even bothering discussing it. It will not happen as long as Obama is in office. Planned Parenthood helped get him elected and he's not about to let them down now, so close to 2012.
I keep hearing how the act of defunding PP is anti-women. Do you believe this is true?
From your link:
It isn't even a case of anti family, anti life, anti woman or anything else along those lines. Instead it is an issue about taxes, that is all there is to talk about the funding. The federal government has no constitutional authority to raise taxes for this issue or legislate anything about it.
Let's end this idiotic debate once and for all, no one is anti life or anti choice, people truly want both there is just a difference in opinion on when life starts. The supreme court must determine when life starts and no abortions should occur after that point (unless the womans life is endangered), and before that point it is completely within an individuals right to make a decision about their body.
Done, finished, Right wingers you should be satisfied that no life is being taken, and left wingers womans choice is satisfied.
It isn't even a case of anti family, anti life, anti woman or anything else along those lines. Instead it is an issue about taxes, that is all there is to talk about the funding. The federal government has no constitutional authority to raise taxes for this issue or legislate anything about it.
Let's end this idiotic debate once and for all, no one is anti life or anti choice, people truly want both there is just a difference in opinion on when life starts. The supreme court must determine when life starts and no abortions should occur after that point (unless the womans life is endangered), and before that point it is completely within an individuals right to make a decision about their body.
Done, finished, Right wingers you should be satisfied that no life is being taken, and left wingers womans choice is satisfied.
I agree, however many who say they are pro-life are also against birth control and for that reason they would be against Planned Parenthood. I would go so far as to say these folks are the cause of many pregnancies/abortions as they believe in abstinence-only education.I don't think they are anti-woman but they are ignorant of what Planned Parenthood really does. They are so obsessed with abortion that they ignore all the good the organization does. I read this elsewhere but it made sense to me. If you are anti-abortion you should be for universal healthcare. Countries with universal health care have fewer abortions. If women have access to free birth control they are less likely to get pregnant. This is also true of Planned Parenthood. Without the birth control services they provide we are likely to have more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
I don't think they are anti-woman but they are ignorant of what Planned Parenthood really does. They are so obsessed with abortion that they ignore all the good the organization does. I read this elsewhere but it made sense to me. If you are anti-abortion you should be for universal healthcare. Countries with universal health care have fewer abortions. If women have access to free birth control they are less likely to get pregnant. This is also true of Planned Parenthood. Without the birth control services they provide we are likely to have more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?